All you need to know about Bob Barr

[John Edward Mercier]

Anarchists only have self-imposed rules... and those are periodic (meaning subject to change at their whim).

[David]

Agorism as a philosophy specifically rejects working within the power system.  It seeks to undermine 'faith in gov't' while simutaneously building alternatives.  He may not call it that, but Stefphan Molyneux preaches agorism.  Brad Spangler is an agorist. 
I realize that the word libertarian has effectively been watered down to virtual meaninglessness, but strictly speaking, neither Barr or Paul is a libertarian.  Barr much less so than Paul. 

[PattyLee loves dogs]

Anarchists only have self-imposed rules... and those are periodic (meaning subject to change at their whim).

So you can renege on contracts and be an anarcho-capitalist? I don't think so. Unfortunately "anarchist" has come to mean "guy who lives in parent's basement and throws rocks at trade meetings"... the correct label for such people is "nihilist".

David Friedman has a good paper on the anarchist system in medieval Iceland:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

You didn't want to renege on contracts with those guys 

[Kat Kanning]

Isn't a contract a self-imposed rule?  You enter into it voluntarily.

[Kat Kanning]

...not that I agree with whoever you're quoting.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

I realize that the word libertarian has effectively been watered down to virtual meaninglessness, but strictly speaking, neither Barr or Paul is a libertarian.  Barr much less so than Paul. 

I would say Paul is a libertarian. Barr no. Also, the word "libertarian" being used by non-libertarians like radio talk show host Jay Severin and others, doesn't mean it's meaningless its just mis-used by those who don't understand libertarianism.

[John Edward Mercier]

Anarchists only have self-imposed rules... and those are periodic (meaning subject to change at their whim).

So you can renege on contracts and be an anarcho-capitalist? I don't think so. Unfortunately "anarchist" has come to mean "guy who lives in parent's basement and throws rocks at trade meetings"... the correct label for such people is "nihilist".

David Friedman has a good paper on the anarchist system in medieval Iceland:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

You didn't want to renege on contracts with those guys 

Laws and rulers... not really what one would consider anarchistic, or even voluntary.

[John Edward Mercier]

I realize that the word libertarian has effectively been watered down to virtual meaninglessness, but strictly speaking, neither Barr or Paul is a libertarian.  Barr much less so than Paul. 

I would say Paul is a libertarian. Barr no. Also, the word "libertarian" being used by non-libertarians like radio talk show host Jay Severin and others, doesn't mean it's meaningless its just mis-used by those who don't understand libertarianism.

I would agree with Dave. Paul is more of the Constitutional Party mindset.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

I would agree with Dave. Paul is more of the Constitutional Party mindset.

I sincerely doubt Paul wants Christianity to be the official religion of the USA. Isn't that one of the CP's planks? It's been awhile since I've looked at their site, but they seem pretty theocratic and the only thing Paul falls short on libertarianism-wise is his official stance towards immigration.
Like several other folk, I have wondered if that stance was only pandering because of the fact that he is in Texas and you have to be anti-"illegal" immigration in order to stay in office from what I've heard.

[John Edward Mercier]

Whether one states it... or attempts to establish it de facto make little difference.

[AnarchoJesse]

Anarchists only have self-imposed rules... and those are periodic (meaning subject to change at their whim).

So you can renege on contracts and be an anarcho-capitalist? I don't think so. Unfortunately "anarchist" has come to mean "guy who lives in parent's basement and throws rocks at trade meetings"... the correct label for such people is "nihilist".

David Friedman has a good paper on the anarchist system in medieval Iceland:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

You didn't want to renege on contracts with those guys 

Laws and rulers... not really what one would consider anarchistic, or even voluntary.

Anarchism is not a lack of rulers or lack of laws- it's a lack of unchosen obligations.

[John Edward Mercier]

Anarchy is a lack of rulers. Voluntaryism is the lack of unchosen obligations.

[Vitruvian]

Anarchy is a lack of rulers. Voluntaryism is the lack of unchosen obligations.

Is the difference really worth bickering about?  How can one be obligated unwillingly in the absence of rulers?

Anarchism and voluntaryism are two names for the same concept: namely, that no man is above another.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

Laws and rulers... not really what one would consider anarchistic, or even voluntary.

Godords aren't "rulers", they're more like insurance company executives... read the $#@! Friedman paper 

[John Edward Mercier]

Where did you think I got my reply from?

'While these characteristics of the Icelandic legal system may seem peculiar, they are not unique to medieval Iceland. The wergeld--the fine for killing a man--was an essential part of the legal system of Anglo-Saxon England, and still exists in New Guinea.[7] The sale of legislative seats has been alleged in many societies and existed openly in some.'

Anarchy has no legal system... its limits are self-imposed.
Whether one purchases a legislative (law making) seat, or is elected to one... makes no difference. In an Anarchy only the individual may set limits on the individual... the consent of others is not part of the process.